End of Semester Presentation

1. End of Semester Presentation Team Lingua Franca 12/13/07 Radhika Bansal Rikuo Kittaka Kenichi Nakao Thomsun Sriburadej Bradley Wilson

2. Agenda • Team and customer overview • Project background and problem • Process and operations • Planning and tracking • Reflection • Next semester planning 2

3. Team Lingua Franca 3

4. Our Customer and Mentors • Software Engineering Institute • Ipek Ozkaya • Rick Kazman • Mark Klein • Mentors • Vijay Sai • Scott Hissam • Sungwon Kang 4

5. Project Summary • Mission • Develop a tool for software architects who are making value-driven architecture decisions • Problem • It is difficult to evaluate the economic impact of an architecture • Management and technical people have differing interests (e.g. product level vs. technical level) 5

6. What is Important to the Client • Team LF needs to think about change • The project is continually evolving and the client wants early design instead of formal requirements • This project is very much research application • Modifiability of analysis methodologies • Extensibility to COTS tools and existing economic forecasting models 6

7. Context Diagram Capture/Import EDA data Add/Modify Analysis Methods data B Analysis Methods Analysis Data Calculate & display analysis result Method X data A CBAM Save/Export EDA data Functionality data C SEI Tool for Economics-Driven Architecting Legend Action Analysis Methods Architect Analysis data System Architect/Developer 7

8. Selecting the Design Process Client identified the quality attributes of modifiability and extensibility as high priorities for the system We settled on Architecture Centric Design Method (ACDM) to deal with architectural considerations up front and give us flexibility to choose a development process later 8

9. Techniques for Requirements Elicitation and Scoping 9

10. Requirements Tracking Process • ACDM has helped us elicit drivers • In addition to ACDM pre and post conditions, we use Wideband Delphi to establish our own criteria Consolidation Analysis 10

11. Meeting Process • Weekly status/mentor meeting (50 minutes) • Weekly client meeting (1 hour) • Meeting agendas with objectives, expected duration, attendees, and roles is required 11

12. Document Review ADS Proposals SOW The review process is intended to improve quality Assign one to two team members as reviewers Document owner is responsible for distribution 12

13. Configuration Management Process • For collaborative document editing, we created a CM process • Used Google docs initially for online/group editing capability, but migrated to an online file repository *Version requirements formalized in December 13

14. Planning – Goals of Fall ‘07 Need Improvement Good Okay

15. Planning Approach Oct. Nov. Dec. Milestones Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Final V0.8 V0.9 Interim ADCM Stage1 SOW V1.0 ADS V0.6 V0.8 V0.9 ADCM Stage2 ADS V1.0 ADCM Stage3 Notional Arch. Design v0.1 • Milestone-based tasking • Task list -> WBS • Two week cycle planning 15 ADL : Architecture Drivers List SOW : Statement of Work ADS : Architecture Drivers Specification

16. Quote “Laddie, you didn’a tell em how long it would REALLY take did ya?” “You’ve got a lot of work to do if you want people to think of ya as a miracle worker” -Scotty (Engineer)

17. Earned Value Analysis 17

18. Estimated and Actual Hours Analysis Hours Task 18

19. Effort Allocation Analysis 19

20. Risk Management • Approaches • SWOT Analysis • Continuous Risk Management (CRM) 20

21. Reflection – Problem Definition 21

22. Reflection – Operations 22

23. Reflection – Plans 23

24. Next Semester Plan Architecture Version 1.0 UI Specification Version 1.0 EOSP Software Product Prototype Architecture Draft Version UI Specification Draft Version Detailed Plan MOSP Jan Feb Mar Apr May Design Cycle 1 Design Cycle 2 Prototype Development 24

25. Questions Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Team LF Wishlist: -No questions 25

26. Appendix 26

27. SWOT Analysis • Good team blend in terms of experience • Diverse skill sets • Easy to come to a consensus • No procrastinators • Hardworking • Communication • Managing time / workloads • We will get better equipped at taking EDA decisions • Knowledgeable / High interaction and involved client • Greenfield project draws on our creativity • Common time • Client has tunnel vision • Research / Unstructured project topic • Knowledgeable client 27 27

28. Notional Architecture – Module View 28

29. The Number of New High Priority Drivers Is Diminishing 29

30. Initial Data Dependency Diagram 30

31. Data Dependency Diagram After Multiple Iterations - Importing 31

32. Data Dependency Diagram After Multiple Iterations - CBAM 32

33. Paper Prototypes 33

34. User Environment Design 34

35. Architectural Driver Specification Functional requirements are in use case form Quality attributes in six part scenarios Both are prioritized by our team and the client 35

36. Customer Survey • 1 – Unsatisfactory • 2 – OK, but needs improvement • 3 – Acceptable • 4 – Good “I think the team has good understanding of the general drivers, yet needs to focus on now materializing them.”